Background: Electrocardiograph-generated measurements of PR, QRS, and QT intervals are generally thought to be more precise than manual measurements on paper records. However, the performance of different programs has not been well compared.
Methods: Routinely obtained digital electrocardiograms (ECGs), including over 500 pediatric ECGs, were used to create over 2000 10 s analog ECGs that were replayed through seven commercially available electrocardiographs. The measurements for PR interval, QRS duration, and QT interval made by each program were extracted and compared against each other (using the median of the programs after correction for program bias) and the population mean values.
Results: Small but significant systematic biases were seen between programs. The smallest and largest variation from the population mean differed by 4.7 ms for PR intervals, 5.8 ms for QRS duration, and 12.4 ms for QT intervals. In pairwise comparison programs showed similar accuracy for most ECGs, with the average absolute errors at the 75th percentile for PR intervals being 4-6 ms from the median, QRS duration 4-8 ms, and QT interval 6-10 ms. However, substantial differences were present in the numbers and extent of large, clinically significant errors (e.g at the 98th percentile), for which programs differed by a factor of two for absolute errors, as well as differences in the mix of overestimations and underestimations.
Conclusions: When reading digital ECGs, users should be aware that small systematic differences exist between programs and that there may be large clinically important errors in difficult cases.
Keywords: Automated ECG measurement; ECG; Electrocardiogram; PR-interval; QRS-duration; QT-interval.
Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.